Knicks · We have no shooters (page 1)

Basketball can be very simple or very complex, it's what you make of it. Some people put too much emphasis on coaching, game planning, and match-ups, but the fact of the matter is you have to have shooters. Over the last few years we haven't had pure shooters. Long gone are the days of Starks, Houston, Ward, Johnson, and Ewing to name a few, or even go back to the good old days of Frasier, Monroe, Bradly, Debusschereand, and Reed...they were all shooters

Bottom line is you have to have shooters and we don't have any...hopefully Quickley will be one. But watching other teams play I ask myself why don't we have any. Most all of our are considered steak shooters. That's a cop out way of saying we don't have any.

Best coaching an strategy in the world will not overcome poor or inconsistent shooters.

ccch wrote:Basketball can be very simple or very complex, it's what you make of it. Some people put too much emphasis on coaching, game planning, and match-ups, but the fact of the matter is you have to have shooters. Over the last few years we haven't had pure shooters. Long gone are the days of Starks, Houston, Ward, Johnson, and Ewing to name a few, or even go back to the good old days of Frasier, Monroe, Bradly, Debusschereand, and Reed...they were all shooters

Bottom line is you have to have shooters and we don't have any...hopefully Quickley will be one. But watching other teams play I ask myself why don't we have any. Most all of our are considered steak shooters. That's a cop out way of saying we don't have any.

Best coaching an strategy in the world will not overcome poor or inconsistent shooters.

Perimeter shooting has never been at such a high priority than in today’s modern NBA. Valued more so than consistent, versatile wing play. Without both these factors you’re not winning. The days of playing two traditional post players Are long gone.

Was a massive advocate for bringing in shooters and wing players via draft. Nesmith/ Vassell etc. This didn’t happen. I accept and move on. OB1 was not for me. But very impressed with what I’ve seen with IQ.

I’m all for shaking up the guard rotation to verify any unknown qualities. Think it’s time Jared Harper gets some burn. Myles Powell anyone? More minutes for IQ pending his injury etc. Something gotta happen though.

The goal of the draft is to take the player with the highest ceiling that's going to get there.

In fairness, the Knicks drafted 2 players who can shoot and brought in Burks who can shoot and brought in Rivers who is an average shooter. All 4 of them made the rotation, but 3 of those players are hurt right now, which is unfortunate and means that Elf is getting minutes. Rivers and Quickley need to come back is what needs to happen so we can phase out the 3 non-nba point guards.

y2zipper wrote:The goal of the draft is to take the player with the highest ceiling that's going to get there.

In fairness, the Knicks drafted 2 players who can shoot and brought in Burks who can shoot and brought in Rivers who is an average shooter. All 4 of them made the rotation, but 3 of those players are hurt right now, which is unfortunate and means that Elf is getting minutes. Rivers and Quickley need to come back is what needs to happen so we can phase out the 3 non-nba point guards.

+1

y2zipper wrote:The goal of the draft is to take the player with the highest ceiling that's going to get there.

In fairness, the Knicks drafted 2 players who can shoot and brought in Burks who can shoot and brought in Rivers who is an average shooter. All 4 of them made the rotation, but 3 of those players are hurt right now, which is unfortunate and means that Elf is getting minutes. Rivers and Quickley need to come back is what needs to happen so we can phase out the 3 non-nba point guards.

. Agreed

ccch wrote:Basketball can be very simple or very complex, it's what you make of it. Some people put too much emphasis on coaching, game planning, and match-ups, but the fact of the matter is you have to have shooters. Over the last few years we haven't had pure shooters. Long gone are the days of Starks, Houston, Ward, Johnson, and Ewing to name a few, or even go back to the good old days of Frasier, Monroe, Bradly, Debusschereand, and Reed...they were all shooters

Bottom line is you have to have shooters and we don't have any...hopefully Quickley will be one. But watching other teams play I ask myself why don't we have any. Most all of our are considered steak shooters. That's a cop out way of saying we don't have any.

Best coaching an strategy in the world will not overcome poor or inconsistent shooters.

Papabear Says

We have part time shooters. They have 1 good game and 3 bad shooting games or they shoot the ball great but give it back because no defense

Papabear Says

We have part time shooters. They have 1 good game and 3 bad shooting games or they shoot the ball great but give it back because no defense
[/quote]

After Sundays great game, now the test will be Tuesday. Can we do it 2 games in a row?

ccch wrote:Basketball can be very simple or very complex, it's what you make of it. Some people put too much emphasis on coaching, game planning, and match-ups, but the fact of the matter is you have to have shooters. Over the last few years we haven't had pure shooters. Long gone are the days of Starks, Houston, Ward, Johnson, and Ewing to name a few, or even go back to the good old days of Frasier, Monroe, Bradly, Debusschereand, and Reed...they were all shooters

Bottom line is you have to have shooters and we don't have any...hopefully Quickley will be one. But watching other teams play I ask myself why don't we have any. Most all of our are considered steak shooters. That's a cop out way of saying we don't have any.

Best coaching an strategy in the world will not overcome poor or inconsistent shooters.

Basketball is very simple. Pass the the ball find the open man shoot run back play defense. hold the other team to less points than you score.Simple enuff?

Papabear wrote:

ccch wrote:Basketball can be very simple or very complex, it's what you make of it. Some people put too much emphasis on coaching, game planning, and match-ups, but the fact of the matter is you have to have shooters. Over the last few years we haven't had pure shooters. Long gone are the days of Starks, Houston, Ward, Johnson, and Ewing to name a few, or even go back to the good old days of Frasier, Monroe, Bradly, Debusschereand, and Reed...they were all shooters

Bottom line is you have to have shooters and we don't have any...hopefully Quickley will be one. But watching other teams play I ask myself why don't we have any. Most all of our are considered steak shooters. That's a cop out way of saying we don't have any.

Best coaching an strategy in the world will not overcome poor or inconsistent shooters.

Papabear Says

We have part time shooters. They have 1 good game and 3 bad shooting games or they shoot the ball great but give it back because no defense

Hello Papabear!!!

ccch wrote:Basketball can be very simple or very complex, it's what you make of it. Some people put too much emphasis on coaching, game planning, and match-ups, but the fact of the matter is you have to have shooters. Over the last few years we haven't had pure shooters. Long gone are the days of Starks, Houston, Ward, Johnson, and Ewing to name a few, or even go back to the good old days of Frasier, Monroe, Bradly, Debusschereand, and Reed...they were all shooters

Bottom line is you have to have shooters and we don't have any...hopefully Quickley will be one. But watching other teams play I ask myself why don't we have any. Most all of our are considered steak shooters. That's a cop out way of saying we don't have any.

Best coaching an strategy in the world will not overcome poor or inconsistent shooters.

I think this goes back to point guard play. I think part of the reason Knox looked so good in pre-season is that Quickley hit with crisp passes on the spot up. I think part of the reason Frank looked good is because the offense flowed. I think we have guys who can hit that shop if they're set up correctly. But outside of Burks, and maybe Quickly when he gets back, we don't really have movement shooters.

BigDaddyG wrote:

ccch wrote:Basketball can be very simple or very complex, it's what you make of it. Some people put too much emphasis on coaching, game planning, and match-ups, but the fact of the matter is you have to have shooters. Over the last few years we haven't had pure shooters. Long gone are the days of Starks, Houston, Ward, Johnson, and Ewing to name a few, or even go back to the good old days of Frasier, Monroe, Bradly, Debusschereand, and Reed...they were all shooters

Bottom line is you have to have shooters and we don't have any...hopefully Quickley will be one. But watching other teams play I ask myself why don't we have any. Most all of our are considered steak shooters. That's a cop out way of saying we don't have any.

Best coaching an strategy in the world will not overcome poor or inconsistent shooters.

I think this goes back to point guard play. I think part of the reason Knox looked so good in pre-season is that Quickley hit with crisp passes on the spot up. I think part of the reason Frank looked good is because the offense flowed. I think we have guys who can hit that shop if they're set up correctly. But outside of Burks, and maybe Quickly when he gets back, we don't really have movement shooters.

Hmmm...
Great shooters.... you guys mean Stars I guess.
We don't have star players. Everybody know this.
We have some prospects. Some assets.
If our prospects will became great shooters we will have stars.
Or we will need to trade for stars using assets we have or will grow.
NBA is business of making or collecting stars.
Who does it best wins it all.
Simple, isn't it?

arkrud wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

ccch wrote:Basketball can be very simple or very complex, it's what you make of it. Some people put too much emphasis on coaching, game planning, and match-ups, but the fact of the matter is you have to have shooters. Over the last few years we haven't had pure shooters. Long gone are the days of Starks, Houston, Ward, Johnson, and Ewing to name a few, or even go back to the good old days of Frasier, Monroe, Bradly, Debusschereand, and Reed...they were all shooters

Bottom line is you have to have shooters and we don't have any...hopefully Quickley will be one. But watching other teams play I ask myself why don't we have any. Most all of our are considered steak shooters. That's a cop out way of saying we don't have any.

Best coaching an strategy in the world will not overcome poor or inconsistent shooters.

I think this goes back to point guard play. I think part of the reason Knox looked so good in pre-season is that Quickley hit with crisp passes on the spot up. I think part of the reason Frank looked good is because the offense flowed. I think we have guys who can hit that shop if they're set up correctly. But outside of Burks, and maybe Quickly when he gets back, we don't really have movement shooters.

Hmmm...
Great shooters.... you guys mean Stars I guess.
We don't have star players. Everybody know this.
We have some prospects. Some assets.
If our prospects will became great shooters we will have stars.
Or we will need to trade for stars using assets we have or will grow.
NBA is business of making or collecting stars.
Who does it best wins it all.
Simple, isn't it?

Simple doesn't mean easy hahaha Luck seems to play a major role in this.

Frank, man. 4 for 4. Threes.

BigDaddyG wrote:

arkrud wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

ccch wrote:Basketball can be very simple or very complex, it's what you make of it. Some people put too much emphasis on coaching, game planning, and match-ups, but the fact of the matter is you have to have shooters. Over the last few years we haven't had pure shooters. Long gone are the days of Starks, Houston, Ward, Johnson, and Ewing to name a few, or even go back to the good old days of Frasier, Monroe, Bradly, Debusschereand, and Reed...they were all shooters

Bottom line is you have to have shooters and we don't have any...hopefully Quickley will be one. But watching other teams play I ask myself why don't we have any. Most all of our are considered steak shooters. That's a cop out way of saying we don't have any.

Best coaching an strategy in the world will not overcome poor or inconsistent shooters.

I think this goes back to point guard play. I think part of the reason Knox looked so good in pre-season is that Quickley hit with crisp passes on the spot up. I think part of the reason Frank looked good is because the offense flowed. I think we have guys who can hit that shop if they're set up correctly. But outside of Burks, and maybe Quickly when he gets back, we don't really have movement shooters.

Hmmm...
Great shooters.... you guys mean Stars I guess.
We don't have star players. Everybody know this.
We have some prospects. Some assets.
If our prospects will became great shooters we will have stars.
Or we will need to trade for stars using assets we have or will grow.
NBA is business of making or collecting stars.
Who does it best wins it all.
Simple, isn't it?

Simple doesn't mean easy hahaha Luck seems to play a major role in this.

luck being a factor isnt as muc of a factor as smart

You need SMART players with high basketball IQS

Knicks can be a solid shooting team if Quickley, Burks and Bullock are all playing the bulk of the backcourt minutes.

StarksEwing1 wrote:

y2zipper wrote:The goal of the draft is to take the player with the highest ceiling that's going to get there.

In fairness, the Knicks drafted 2 players who can shoot and brought in Burks who can shoot and brought in Rivers who is an average shooter. All 4 of them made the rotation, but 3 of those players are hurt right now, which is unfortunate and means that Elf is getting minutes. Rivers and Quickley need to come back is what needs to happen so we can phase out the 3 non-nba point guards.

. Agreed

NO!!! the ideaof the draft is to take the best player available or the best player to help your team

cooch2584 wrote:

StarksEwing1 wrote:

y2zipper wrote:The goal of the draft is to take the player with the highest ceiling that's going to get there.

In fairness, the Knicks drafted 2 players who can shoot and brought in Burks who can shoot and brought in Rivers who is an average shooter. All 4 of them made the rotation, but 3 of those players are hurt right now, which is unfortunate and means that Elf is getting minutes. Rivers and Quickley need to come back is what needs to happen so we can phase out the 3 non-nba point guards.

. Agreed

NO!!! the ideaof the draft is to take the best player available or the best player to help your team

So you would take the best player regardless of need?

If you already have shaq and Ewing is the best player available, are your going to draft him.

When you draft fit, the learning curb is easy, the development is easy, roles are easier to identify.

Draft talent, and you may have to change everything about your current roster because his skill set doesn't match or compliment most of your team.

This is why you see OBI taking hella 3's, it's because Mitch and Noel are not stretch bigs. I mean can you stretch noel or mitch out for a baseline 3, while you run PnR with Obi. Nope because they will leave them unguarded and pack the paint.

knicks1248 wrote:

cooch2584 wrote:

StarksEwing1 wrote:

y2zipper wrote:The goal of the draft is to take the player with the highest ceiling that's going to get there.

In fairness, the Knicks drafted 2 players who can shoot and brought in Burks who can shoot and brought in Rivers who is an average shooter. All 4 of them made the rotation, but 3 of those players are hurt right now, which is unfortunate and means that Elf is getting minutes. Rivers and Quickley need to come back is what needs to happen so we can phase out the 3 non-nba point guards.

. Agreed

NO!!! the ideaof the draft is to take the best player available or the best player to help your team

So you would take the best player regardless of need?

If you already have shaq and Ewing is the best player available, are your going to draft him.

When you draft fit, the learning curb is easy, the development is easy, roles are easier to identify.

Draft talent, and you may have to change everything about your current roster because his skill set doesn't match or compliment most of your team.

This is why you see OBI taking hella 3's, it's because Mitch and Noel are not stretch bigs. I mean can you stretch noel or mitch out for a baseline 3, while you run PnR with Obi. Nope because they will leave them unguarded and pack the paint.

So in the 1992 draft if the Knicks had the top pick, you are passing on both Shaq and Zo because we got Ewing? Who you going with? The needs were mostly at the 2 and 3, so I guess you go with Walt Williams? LOL

If you are at the top of the draft, you take the best talent.

foosballnick wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

cooch2584 wrote:

StarksEwing1 wrote:

y2zipper wrote:The goal of the draft is to take the player with the highest ceiling that's going to get there.

In fairness, the Knicks drafted 2 players who can shoot and brought in Burks who can shoot and brought in Rivers who is an average shooter. All 4 of them made the rotation, but 3 of those players are hurt right now, which is unfortunate and means that Elf is getting minutes. Rivers and Quickley need to come back is what needs to happen so we can phase out the 3 non-nba point guards.

. Agreed

NO!!! the ideaof the draft is to take the best player available or the best player to help your team

So you would take the best player regardless of need?

If you already have shaq and Ewing is the best player available, are your going to draft him.

When you draft fit, the learning curb is easy, the development is easy, roles are easier to identify.

Draft talent, and you may have to change everything about your current roster because his skill set doesn't match or compliment most of your team.

This is why you see OBI taking hella 3's, it's because Mitch and Noel are not stretch bigs. I mean can you stretch noel or mitch out for a baseline 3, while you run PnR with Obi. Nope because they will leave them unguarded and pack the paint.

So in the 1992 draft if the Knicks had the top pick, you are passing on both Shaq and Zo because we got Ewing? Who you going with? The needs were mostly at the 2 and 3, so I guess you go with Walt Williams? LOL

If you are at the top of the draft, you take the best talent.

Yep. Need should only be a factor if you're deciding between players the organization has graded similarly. You don't draft Sam Bowie over Michael Jordan because you have Clyde Drexler. You draft Jordan and, if worse comes to worse, you flip one of them for something you need.

foosballnick wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

cooch2584 wrote:

StarksEwing1 wrote:

y2zipper wrote:The goal of the draft is to take the player with the highest ceiling that's going to get there.

In fairness, the Knicks drafted 2 players who can shoot and brought in Burks who can shoot and brought in Rivers who is an average shooter. All 4 of them made the rotation, but 3 of those players are hurt right now, which is unfortunate and means that Elf is getting minutes. Rivers and Quickley need to come back is what needs to happen so we can phase out the 3 non-nba point guards.

. Agreed

NO!!! the ideaof the draft is to take the best player available or the best player to help your team

So you would take the best player regardless of need?

If you already have shaq and Ewing is the best player available, are your going to draft him.

When you draft fit, the learning curb is easy, the development is easy, roles are easier to identify.

Draft talent, and you may have to change everything about your current roster because his skill set doesn't match or compliment most of your team.

This is why you see OBI taking hella 3's, it's because Mitch and Noel are not stretch bigs. I mean can you stretch noel or mitch out for a baseline 3, while you run PnR with Obi. Nope because they will leave them unguarded and pack the paint.

So in the 1992 draft if the Knicks had the top pick, you are passing on both Shaq and Zo because we got Ewing? Who you going with? The needs were mostly at the 2 and 3, so I guess you go with Walt Williams? LOL

If you are at the top of the draft, you take the best talent.

No, I'm saying that if you had Ewing, and shaq and curry are both available in the same draft, your going to go with shaq (because he's more talented) although you desperately need shooting.

If your system is base on playing fast and hitting 3's, why would you draft a guy who can't do any of that.